[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5221-5231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1368]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 05-196]


Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Access to 
Emergency Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should adopt rules requiring Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet-
Protocol (IP) Relay providers to adopt a means to ensure that, when the 
provider receives emergency calls made via these services, the provider 
can make an outbound call to the appropriate Public Safety Answering 
Point (PSAP). More specifically, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should adopt a registration process whereby VRS and IP Relay 
service providers are required to establish, in advance, the primary 
location from which the VRS and IP Relay service providers will be 
making calls, so the provider can identify the appropriate PSAP to 
contact.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 22, 2006. Reply comments 
are due on or before March 8, 2006. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection requirements must 
be submitted by the general public, Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), and other interested parties on or before April 3, 2006.

[[Page 5222]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [CG Docket number 03-
123 and/or FCC Number 05-196], by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone (202) 418-
0539 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition, a copy of any 
comments on the PRA information collection requirements contained 
herein should be submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 
via the Internet to [email protected], and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB 
Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20503, or via the Internet to [email protected], or via 
fax at (202) 395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 418-1475 
(voice), (202) 418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at [email protected]. 
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact 
Leslie Smith at (202) 418-0217, or via the Internet at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Access to Emergency 
Services; CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 05-196, contains proposed 
information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review under section 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the 
proposed information collection requirements contained in this 
document. This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM, FCC 05-196, 
adopted November 18, 2005, and released November 30, 2005, in CG Docket 
No. 03-123.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, which in this instance 
is CG Docket No. 03-123. Parties may also submit an electronic comment 
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an 
e-mail to [email protected], and include the following words in the body of 
the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption in this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies of each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    Pursuant to Sec.  1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, 
this matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in 
which ex parte communications are subject to disclosure. Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the 
presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More 
than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments 
presented is generally required. Other requirements pertaining to oral 
and written presentations are set forth in Sec.  1.1206(b) of the 
Commission's rules.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 
418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The NPRM contains proposed information collection requirements. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements 
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comment are due April 3, 
2006. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,

[[Page 5223]]

Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how it may ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Access 
to Emergency Services.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Number of Respondents: 8--(6 of which provides VRS and IP Relay 
service; 2 of which provides VRS).
    Number of Responses: 5,001,022.
    Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; State, Local 
or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Time per Response: 4 to 1,000 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Annual and on occasion reporting 
requirement; Recordkeeping; Third party disclosure.
    Total Annual Burden: 21,504 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $0.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Needs and Uses: On November 30, 2005, the Commission released a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), CG Docket No. 03-123, which 
addresses the issue of access to emergency services for Internet-based 
forms of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), namely Video Relay 
Service (VRS) and Internet-Protocol (IP) Relay Service. The Commission 
seeks to adopt a means to ensure that such calls promptly reach the 
appropriate emergency service provider. By doing so, the NPRM seeks 
comment on various issues: (1) Whether the Commission should require 
VRS and IP Relay service providers to establish a registration process 
in which VRS and IP Relay service users provide, in advance, the 
primary location from which they will be making VRS or IP Relay service 
calls (the Registered Location), so that a communication assistant (CA) 
can identify the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) to 
contact; (2) Should VRS and IP Relay providers be required to register 
their customers and obtain a Registered Location from their customers 
so that they will be able to make the outbound call to the appropriate 
PSAP; (3) whether there are other means by which VRS and IP Relay 
service providers may obtain Registered Location information, for 
example, by linking the serial number of the customer VRS or IP Relay 
service terminal or equipment to their registered location; (4) any 
privacy considerations that might be raised by requiring VRS and IP 
Relay service users to provide location information as a prerequisite 
to using these services; (5) whether, assuming some type of location 
registration requirement is adopted, the Commission should require 
specific information or place limits on the scope of information that 
providers should be able to obtain; (6) whether the Commission should 
require VRS and IP Relay providers to provide appropriate warning 
labels for installation on customer premises equipment (CPE) used in 
connection with VRS and IP Relay services; (7) whether the Commission 
should require VRS and IP Relay providers to obtain and keep a record 
of affirmative acknowledgement by every subscriber of having received 
and understood the advisory that E911 service may not be available 
through VRS and IP Relay or may be in some way limited by comparison to 
traditional E911 service; and (8) how the Commission may ensure that 
providers have updated location information, and the respective 
obligations of the providers and the consumers in this regard.

Synopsis

    In the NPRM, the Commission addresses the issue of access to 
emergency services for VRS and IP Relay services. TRS, created by Title 
IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), enables an 
individual with a hearing or speech disability to communicate by 
telephone or other device through the telephone system with a person 
without such a disability. See 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3) (defining TRS); 47 
CFR 64.601(14). As the Commission has often recognized, 911 service is 
critical to our nation's ability to respond to a host of crises. See, 
e.g., Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with 
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, 
FCC 96-264, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18679, paragraph 
5 (July 26, 1996); published at 61 FR 40348 (August 2, 1996), (E911 
First Report and Order); IP-Enabled Service, E911 Requirements for IP-
Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196, FCC 05-116, 
First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 
10245, at 10247-10248, paragraph 4 (June 3, 2005) (VoIP E911 Order); 
published at 70 FR 43323 (July 27, 2005). In the four decades since 911 
service was established, Americans largely take for granted, that in 
the event of an emergency, they can use the telephone to quickly reach 
the proper authorities and that the first responders will be able to 
accurately locate them. See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10248-10249, 
paragraph 6. Because wireline telephones are generally linked to a 
particular address, emergency calls placed over the traditional Public 
Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), including direct TTY calls, can 
usually be routed to the proper PSAP where location information is 
automatically displayed. When a user dials 911 with a TTY to contact a 
PSAP, it is not a TRS call and therefore a relay provider is not 
involved. Such a call is automatically routed to the appropriate PSAP 
in the same manner as any other 911 PSTN call, and contains the same 
location and callback information as a voice call to 911. Under Title 
II of the ADA, PSAPs must be capable of directly receiving TTY calls. 
See 28 CFR 35.162 (United States Department of Justice regulations 
implementing Title II of the ADA and requiring telephone emergency 
services, including 911 services, to provide ``direct access to 
individuals who use [TTY's]''). This is the most reliable way for 
persons with hearing or speech disabilities to reach emergency 
services. VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10250-10254, paragraphs 12-18. 
Such direct, automatic access to emergency services through VRS and IP 
Relay services, however, does not currently exist and, accordingly, 
solutions must be developed.
    Emergency calls made via TRS, rather than by directly calling 911, 
present unique challenges, because they are connected through a 
communications assistant (CA), rather than routed directly and 
automatically to the appropriate PSAP over a network, and the CA must 
make an outbound voice telephone call to the appropriate PSAP. The CA, 
therefore, must have a means of determining both (1) where the relay 
caller is physically located, and (2) the appropriate PSAP that 
corresponds to that geographic location so the CA can make the outbound 
telephone call to the PSAP. Because Internet-based calls do not 
originate on the PSTN, location and callback information is not 
transmitting and CAs must use other methods to ascertain the callers' 
location. The Commission accordingly seeks comment on ways in which we 
may ensure that the CA will be able to call the appropriate PSAP when a 
VRS or IP Relay service user calls the relay provider and asks the CA 
to call emergency services. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether, and if so, how, requirements ensuring that persons using VRS 
and IP Relay service will have access to emergency services might 
affect the TRS funding

[[Page 5224]]

mechanism. See generally Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-
to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CC Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, 
Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 12475, at 12482-12483, paragraphs 7-8 
(June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report and Order); published at 69 FR 53346 
(September 1, 2004) and 69 FR 53382 (September 1, 2004) (overview of 
TRS funding mechanism).

Background

Telecommunications Relay Service

    Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 
adding Section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, requires the 
Commission to ensure that TRS is available, to the extent possible and 
in the most efficient manner, to persons with hearing or speech 
disabilities in the United States. 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). The statute 
requires that TRS offer persons with hearing and speech disabilities 
telephone transmission services that are ``functionally equivalent'' to 
voice telephone services. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).
    Initially, TRS was provided via a TTY (text telephone) and the 
PSTN. In such a ``traditional'' TRS call, a person with a hearing or 
speech disability initiates the call by dialing (i.e., typing) a 
telephone number for a TRS facility using a TTY, and then types the 
number of the party he or she desires to call. The CA, in turn, places 
an outbound voice call to the called party. The CA serves as the 
``link'' in the conversation, converting all typed TTY messages from 
the caller into voice messages for the called party, and all voice 
messages from the called party into typed messages for the TTY user. 
See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12480, paragraph 
3, note 18.
    In March 2000, the Commission recognized VRS as a form of TRS. See 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 
5140, 5152-5154, paragraphs 21-27 (March 6, 2000); published at 65 FR 
38432 (June 21, 2000) and 65 FR 38490 (June 21, 2000) (Improved TRS 
Order and FNPRM) (recognizing VRS as a form of TRS); 47 CFR 64.601(17) 
(defining VRS). VRS requires the use of a broadband Internet connection 
between the VRS user and the CA, which allows them to communicate in 
sign language via a video link. The CA, in turn, places an outbound 
telephone call to a hearing person. During the call, the CA 
communicates in American Sign Language (ASL) with the deaf person and 
by voice with the hearing person. Presently, all VRS and IP Relay 
service calls are compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. The 
question of whether the Commission should adopt a mechanism for the 
jurisdictional separation of costs for these services is pending before 
the Commission. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12561-12564, 
paragraphs 221-230 (IP Relay), at 12567, paragraphs 241-242 (VRS). 
Although the Commission has not made VRS a mandatory service, it has 
encouraged its development. In the past few years use of VRS has grown 
tremendously. In January 2002, the first month VRS was generally 
offered, there were 7,215 minutes of use; in January 2003, there were 
128,114 minutes of use; in January 2004, there were 477,538 minutes of 
use; and in January 2005, there were 1,634,316 minutes of use. There 
were over 2.2 million minutes of use of VRS in July 2005.
    In April 2002, the Commission recognized a second Internet-based 
form of TRS--IP Relay service. See Provision of Improved 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, 
Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 
FCC Rcd 7779 (April 22, 2002); published at 67 FR 39863 (June 11, 2002) 
and 67 FR 39929 (June 11, 2002) (IP Relay Declaratory Ruling and 
FNPRM). IP Relay service calls are text-based calls, but the user 
connects to the TRS facility via a computer (or other similar device) 
and the Internet, rather than via a TTY and the PSTN. A user 
establishes a local connection to an Internet service provider using a 
computer, web phone, personal digital assistant, or other IP-enabled 
device, selects the Internet address of an IP Relay service provider, 
and is connected to a CA who handles the call in the same way that TTY-
based calls are handled. See generally Provision of Improved 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, 
Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 4761, at 4762, paragraph 3, note 
11 (March 14, 2003). IP Relay service, like VRS, has become very 
popular, because the user can make a relay call with any computer (or 
similar device) connected to the Internet, rather than only with a 
dedicated TTY.

911/E911 Service

    Basic 911 service is a forwarding arrangement in which 911 calls 
are transmitted, based on the caller's location, to a geographically 
appropriate PSAP. See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10250-10251, 
paragraph 12. These calls are therefore routed based on the calling 
party's number, not the called number. See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
at 10251, paragraph 13, note 32. The service does not provide the PSAP, 
however, with the caller's location information. E911 systems do 
provide the call taker with the caller's call back number, referred to 
as Automatic Numbering Information (ANI), and, in many cases, the 
caller's location information, a capability referred to as Automatic 
Location Identification (ALI). VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10251, 
paragraph 13. Virtually all wireline local exchange carriers (LECs) and 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) carriers now provide at least 
basic 911 service, and in many localities E911 service. VoIP E911 
Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10249-10251, paragraphs 8, 13.
    New communications technologies have posed technical and 
operational challenges to the 911 system. VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
at 10249, paragraph 8. For example, the mobility of wireless telephones 
renders the use of permanent street addresses as a location indicator 
useless. The person using the telephone could be anywhere in the 
country, notwithstanding that the wireless telephone number is 
associated with a particular physical address. Under the Commission's 
rules, wireless telephone service providers must employ a means of 
providing real-time location updates to the PSAP. VoIP E911 Order, 20 
FCC Rcd at 10252-10253, paragraph 17. Thus, wireless carriers have 
developed various techniques to provide ANI and ALI to the PSAPs that 
involve enhancements to the existing wireless E911 network. See 
generally VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10252-10254, paragraphs 16-18 
(addressing wireless E911 technical and operational issues).

TRS and Emergency Call Handling

    In 1991, the Commission, pursuant to Congress's direction in 
Section 225 of the Communications Act, adopted the TRS regulations. See 
Telecommunication Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC 
Docket No. 90-571, FCC 91-213, Report and Order and Request for 
Comments, 6 FCC Rcd

[[Page 5225]]

4657 (July 26, 1991); published at 56 FR 36729 (August 1, 1991) (TRS 
I). These regulations include mandatory minimum standards that govern 
the provision of TRS. See 47 CFR 64.604. The purpose of these standards 
is to ensure that TRS users have the ability to access the telephone 
system in a manner that approximates, as closely as possible, the 
experience of a voice telephone user consistent with the functional 
equivalency mandate. One of the mandatory minimum standards requires 
TRS CAs to handle emergency calls. See 47 CFR 64.604(a)(4); see also, 
TRS I, 6 FCC Rcd at 4659, paragraph 10. The Commission requires CAs to 
handle emergency calls like any other TRS calls. See 47 CFR 
64.604(a)(4); see also, TRS I, 6 FCC Rcd at 4659, paragraph 10. At the 
same time, the Commission has ``strongly encourage[d] * * * TRS users 
to access emergency 911 services directly.'' See 47 CFR 64.604(a)(4) of 
the Commission's rules; see also, TRS I, 6 FCC Rcd at 4659, paragraph 
10. In other words, the Commission recognized that although TRS users 
should call 911 on their TTY in the event of an emergency, so that they 
would be directly connected to a PSAP, TRS providers also were required 
to handle emergency calls if a person chose to make an emergency call 
through the TRS center. The final rule provided: ``CAs shall handle 
emergency calls in the same manner as they handle any other TRS 
calls.'' 47 CFR 64.604(a)(3) (1993).
    In 1998, the Commission proposed amendments to the TRS mandatory 
minimum standards and sought comment on various issues to enhance the 
quality of TRS and broaden the potential universe of TRS users. 
Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired and Speech Impaired 
Individuals, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket 
No. 90-571, FCC 98-90, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 14187 
(May 20, 1998) (1998 TRS NPRM). One of the issues the Commission 
addressed was access to emergency services. 1998 TRS NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd 
at 14203, paragraphs 40-41. The Commission noted that despite 
regulations requiring state and local governments to make emergency 
services directly accessible to TTY users (for direct TTY to TTY 
calls), many individuals with hearing and speech disabilities use TRS 
to contact emergency services. 1998 TRS NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 14203, 
paragraph 41. The Commission also expressed concern that there was 
``inconsistency and confusion among the states and TRS providers as to 
how such calls should be handled.'' 1998 TRS NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 14203, 
paragraph 40. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on how TRS 
providers were handling emergency calls and, more specifically, whether 
TRS providers should be required to pass a caller's ANI to an emergency 
services operator. 1998 TRS NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 14203, para. 41.
    In the Improved TRS Order, the Commission recognized that because 
some persons continue to make emergency calls via TRS (rather than 
directly TTY to TTY), it had an ``obligation to make relay calls to 911 
functionally equivalent to a direct call to 911.'' Improved TRS Order 
and FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 5182-5183, paragraphs 99-100. The Commission 
modified the TRS emergency call handling rule in two respects. First, 
the Commission required providers to be able to match the incoming 
caller's telephone number with the appropriate PSAP electronically, so 
that the CA can quickly make the outbound call to the PSAP. Improved 
TRS Order and FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 5182-5184, paragraphs 99-102. 
Second, the Commission required CAs to pass along the caller's 
telephone number to the PSAP orally when the caller disconnects before 
being connected to emergency services. Improved TRS Order and FNPRM, 15 
FCC Rcd at 5183-5184, paragraph 101. As a result of these additional 
requirements, TRS service providers found it necessary to develop new 
databases of all PSAPs in the country. See Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 4662, 4666, 
paragraph 12 (February 23, 2001) (TRS 911 Waiver Order).
    In June 2003, the Commission again addressed TRS access to 
emergency services. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 
CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 03-112, Second Report 
and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
18 FCC Rcd 12379, at 12407, paragraph 42 (June 17, 2003); published at 
68 FR 50973 (August 25, 2003) and 68 FR 50993 (August 25, 2004) (TRS 
Second Improved Report and Order). The Commission clarified that TRS 
providers must route emergency TRS calls to the ``appropriate'' PSAP 
and required TRS providers to adjust their databases accordingly. TRS 
Second Improved Report and Order 18 FCC Rcd at 12406-12408, paragraphs 
40-42. Because of jurisdictional boundaries, the ``appropriate'' PSAP 
is not always the geographically closest PSAP to the calling party. The 
Commission also addressed handling of wireless emergency TRS calls, 
noting the difficulty in tracing the location of the wireless caller, 
and sought comment on how to make such calls functionally equivalent to 
wireless voice calls. TRS Second Improved Report and Order 18 FCC Rcd 
at 12408, paragraphs 43-46, and 12433-12434, paragraphs 108-109. In a 
subsequent order, the Commission further clarified that the 
``appropriate'' PSAP is ``either a PSAP that the caller would have 
reached if he had dialed 911 directly, or a PSAP that is capable of 
enabling the dispatch of emergency services to the caller in an 
expeditious manner.'' 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12559, 
paragraph 216. The Commission also revisited the issue of routing 
wireless emergency TRS calls. The Commission determined that 
implementation of rules in this context would be premature and that it 
would reconsider the issue at a later time once other E911 requirements 
had been implemented. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12501-
12502, paragraphs 52-54.

Waiver of Emergency Call Handling for VRS and IP Relay

    As noted above, in March 2000 the Commission recognized VRS as a 
form of TRS. In December 2001, the Commission granted a two-year waiver 
of emergency call handling requirements for VRS providers. 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, 
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 157, at 161-162, paragraphs 11-14 (December 31, 2001) 
(VRS Waiver Order). The Commission recognized that VRS providers needed 
additional time to establish PSAP databases, and to adjust new and 
developing VRS technologies to effectively handle emergency calls made 
via VRS. VRS Waiver Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 162, paragraph 13. At the same 
time, VRS providers were required to clearly explain in their 
promotional materials and on their Web sites the shortcomings of using 
VRS to place an emergency call. VRS Waiver Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 162, 
paragraph 14. Subsequently, the Commission has twice extended this 
waiver, which presently expires on January 1, 2006. See 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, 
DA 03-4029, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26309 (December 19, 2003) (extending 
waiver until June 30, 2004); 2004 TRS Report

[[Page 5226]]

and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12520-12521, paragraphs 111-112 (extending 
waiver until January 1, 2006). Most recently, the Commission emphasized 
that because VRS users gain access to VRS via the Internet, rather than 
a telephone, VRS providers do not receive the automatic number 
identification (ANI) of the calling party. As a result, VRS providers 
cannot identify the caller's location to relay that information to the 
PSAP. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12522, paragraph 117.
    The initial order recognizing IP Relay service as a form of TRS 
also waived the emergency call handling requirement. IP Relay 
Declaratory Ruling and FNPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 7789, paragraph 30. The 
Commission noted that IP Relay service providers do not receive the ANI 
of the calling party (because the call is via the Internet), and 
therefore do not have that information to pass on to a PSAP. IP Relay 
Declaratory Ruling and FNPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 7789, paragraph 30. The 
Commission encouraged providers to work on developing a method to 
rapidly obtain location information from emergency callers and pass 
that information on to the appropriate PSAP emergency response center. 
IP Relay Declaratory Ruling and FNPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 7789, paragraph 
30. In March 2003, the Commission extended this waiver until January 1, 
2008, again noting that the technology was not currently available to 
accurately relay emergency IP Relay service calls to emergency service 
providers, and to automatically provide the emergency services 
providers with location information. See generally Telecommunications 
Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 03-46, Order 
on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd. 4761, at 4766, paragraph 12, and 4770-
4771, paragraph 28 (March 14, 2003); published at 68 FR 18826 (April 
16, 2003) (IP Relay Reconsideration Order).

The VoIP E911 Order

    On June 3, 2005, the Commission required interconnected VoIP 
providers, by November 28, 2005, to ``transmit all 911 calls, as well 
as a call back number and the caller's `Registered Location' for each 
call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or 
appropriate local emergency authority that serves the caller's 
Registered Location.'' VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10266, paragraph 
37; see also OMB Grants Emergency Approval of New VoIP E911 Rules 
Adopted in IP-Enabled Services First Report and Order; Effective Date 
is July 29, 2005, WC Docket No. 04-36, Public Notice (July 12, 2005). 
The Commission also required that all E911 calls be routed through the 
existing ``Wireline E911 Network,'' and not to 10-digit NPA-NXX numbers 
(administrative numbers), and that location or call back information be 
provided only to the extent that the PSAP, designated statewide default 
answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority designated to 
serve a Registered Location is capable of receiving and utilizing the 
data (such as ALI or ANI). See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10269-
10270, paragraph 42 and note 142. Even in those areas where the PSAP is 
not capable of receiving or processing location or call back 
information, the Commission concluded that interconnected VoIP 
providers must transmit all 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP via the 
Wireline E911 Network. See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10269-10270, 
paragraph 42. The ``Wireline E911 Network'' is defined as a ``dedicated 
wireline network that (1) is interconnected with but largely separate 
from the public switched telephone network, (2) includes a selective 
router, and (3) is utilized to route emergency calls and related 
information to PSAPS, designated statewide default answering points, 
appropriate local emergency authorities or other emergency answering 
points.'' 47 CFR 9.3. Recognizing that ``it currently is not always 
technologically feasible for providers of interconnected VoIP services 
to automatically determine the location of their end users without end 
users' active cooperation,'' VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10271, 
paragraph 46, the Commission stated that interconnected VoIP providers 
must obtain from each customer, prior to the initiation of service, the 
physical location at which the service will first be utilized. VoIP 
E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10271, paragraph 46. The Commission ordered 
interconnected VoIP providers to obtain from each existing customer, by 
November 28, 2005, the physical location at which the customer is using 
the service. VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10271, at paragraph 46, 
note 147. The Commission also required providers of interconnected VoIP 
services that can be utilized from more than one physical location to 
provide their end users with a method of updating information regarding 
the user's physical location. VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10271, 
paragraph 46. The most recent location provided to an interconnected 
VoIP provider by a customer is the ``Registered Location.'' VoIP E911 
Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10271, paragraph 46. The Commission expected that 
customers of interconnected VoIP service providers would, in almost all 
cases, be able to provide their Registered Location in the form of a 
valid street address. VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10271, paragraph 
46, note 148. The Commission also emphasized that although it was not 
requiring interconnected VoIP providers to automatically determine the 
location of their end users, nothing in the VoIP E911 Order prevents an 
interconnected VoIP provider from automatically obtaining an accurate 
location if it is capable of doing so. VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 
10271, at paragraph 46, note 146.
    The Commission further found that allowing customers of 
interconnected VoIP providers to opt in or opt out of E911 service is 
inconsistent with its obligation to ``encourage and support efforts by 
States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications 
infrastructure and programs.'' See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 
10271-10272, paragraph 47 (quoting Wireless Communications and Public 
Safety Act of 1999, Public Law Number 106-81, 113 Statute 1286, Sec.  
3(b) (1999)). In addition, in order to ensure that customers of 
interconnected VoIP services are aware of their interconnected VoIP 
service's actual E911 capabilities, the Commission required that all 
providers of interconnected VoIP service specifically advise every 
subscriber, both new and existing, of the circumstances under which 
E911 service may not be available through the interconnected VoIP 
service, or may in some way be limited in comparison to traditional 
E911 service. See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10272-10273, paragraph 
48. The Commission also required VoIP providers to obtain and keep a 
record of affirmative acknowledgement by every subscriber of having 
received and understood this advisory. See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
at 10272-10273, paragraph 48. Finally, in order to ensure that the 
advisory is available to all potential users of an interconnected VoIP 
service, the Commission required interconnected VoIP service providers 
to distribute to their subscribers stickers or labels warning if E911 
service may be limited or unavailable, and to instruct subscribers to 
place them on or near the equipment used in conjunction with the 
interconnected VoIP service. See VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10272-
10273, paragraph 48.

Discussion

    The NPRM seeks comment on the means by which providers of VRS and

[[Page 5227]]

IP Relay services may determine the appropriate PSAP to contact when 
they receive an emergency call. As noted above, the Commission has 
waived the TRS emergency call handling mandatory minimum standard for 
VRS until January 1, 2006, and for IP Relay service until January 1, 
2008. These waivers reflect the recognition that it is not currently 
technologically feasible for VRS or IP Relay service providers to 
automatically determine the location of the calling party because the 
Internet address associated with the incoming ``call'' to the relay 
center does not contain identifying information. Because VRS calls can 
be answered by a CA located in another city or state, if the CA simply 
dials 911, the CA would reach a PSAP for the area in which the CA (the 
VRS center) is located, not a PSAP for the area in which the caller is 
located.
    Currently the most reliable way for persons with hearing or speech 
disabilities to reach emergency services is through the use of TTY 
directly, rather than through a relay service. Because PSAPs are 
required to be able to receive direct TTY calls, and such calls contain 
ANI, the PSAP can determine the location of the caller, even if the 
caller is unable to communicate after establishing the connection with 
the PSAP. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that many TRS 
users now solely rely on VRS, or IP Relay services, which require a 
broadband Internet connection, or and therefore such users may not have 
access to a telephone line or a TTY. Such users cannot make a direct 
call to a PSAP in the event of an emergency. The Commission recognizes 
that VRS and IP Relay service users, may need to make emergency calls 
through those services, and will rely on the VRS and IP Relay service 
providers to relay their calls (i.e., make an outbound call) to a PSAP 
that can respond to the emergency. The Commission seeks to adopt a 
means of ensuring that such calls promptly reach the appropriate 
emergency service provider.
    User Registration. As noted above, under the new rules for 
interconnected VoIP services, providers must obtain the primary 
location from which calls will be placed prior to initiating a 
customer's service. VoIP providers must also provide a way for users to 
update that location information. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether VRS and IP Relay service providers should be required to 
similarly register their customers--and obtain a Registered Location--
so that they will be able to make the outbound call to the appropriate 
PSAP. The Commission also seeks comment on how such a registration 
requirement might work for first time users of a particular provider's 
VRS or IP Relay service. Further, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether there are other means by which VRS and IP Relay service 
providers may obtain Registered Location information, for example, by 
linking the serial number of the customer's VRS or IP Relay service 
terminal or equipment to that customer's registered location. Because 
each terminal has a unique identifying number, known as a Media Access 
Control (MAC) address, this could be used to identify or verify a user 
profile which contains the registered address. Finally, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether the same rules should apply to both VRS 
providers and IP Relay service providers, or whether the different 
natures of these services warrant different solutions.
    The Commission recognizes that, in the past, some TRS users have 
expressed opposition to registration, noting that because voice 
telephone users did not have to ``register'' to obtain telephone 
service, and any such requirement would impose an additional burden on 
relay users alone. The VoIP E911 Order should allay that concern, since 
it imposes a similar registration requirement on voice telephone 
subscribers. The Commission also notes that many VRS and IP Relay 
service users currently create profiles to assist providers in handling 
and expediting their calls. See, e.g., http://www.hamiltonrelay.com/internet/ip/profile.html (an example of an IP Relay service provider's 
profile page that allows users to indicate their preferences concerning 
matters such as speed dialing and greetings). Accordingly, making 
similar profiles mandatory through registration, as a condition of 
using VRS and IP Relay service, may not be unduly intrusive or 
burdensome. The Commission seeks comment on whether the use of a 
registration system for VRS and IP Relay service is appropriate and 
consistent with Section 225's functional equivalency mandate. 47 U.S.C. 
225(a)(3). The Commission seeks comment, generally, on any privacy 
considerations that might be raised by requiring VRS and IP Relay 
service users to provide location information as a prerequisite to 
using these services. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
Commission's TRS confidentiality rules are sufficient to address 
potential concerns related to providing personal information through 
the Internet. See 47 CFR 64.604(a)(2). The Commission seeks further 
comment on what measures providers have taken to ensure the privacy and 
security of relay calls. See, e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC 
Rcd at 12522, paragraph 51; IP Relay Declaratory Ruling and FNPRM, 17 
FCC Rcd at 7791, paragraph 38. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether, assuming some type of location registration requirement is 
adopted, the Commission should require specific information or place 
limits on the scope of the information that providers should be able to 
obtain.
    VRS equipment, because it requires a video screen or television 
monitor, tends to remain at the same location, while IP Relay service 
may be accessed through any laptop computer or similar device that 
connects to the Internet, including handheld wireless devices. The 
Commission therefore seeks comment on how we might ensure that IP Relay 
service providers have current location information, i.e., that the 
Registered Location is the actual location of the user when making a 
particular call. In the VoIP E911 Order, the Commission required 
providers to offer their customers a method of updating their location 
information. VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10271, paragraph 46. The 
Commission seeks comment on how it may ensure that VRS and IP Relay 
service providers have updated location information and the respective 
obligations of the providers and the customers in this regard. Should, 
for example, users be required to affirmatively acknowledge whether 
they are at their Registered Location each time they initiate a call, 
and if they are not at their Registered Location, be prompted or 
required to provide their present location?
    The Commission currently requires TRS providers to include ``a 
clear and bold written statement on their Web sites and any VRS 
promotional materials explaining the shortcomings and potential dangers 
of using VRS to place an emergency call using 911,'' see 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, 
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 157, at 162, paragraph 14 (December 31, 2001) 
(temporarily waiving mandatory minimum standards); see also 2004 TRS 
Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12522-3, paragraphs 116-118 (extending 
waivers and confirming warning requirement), so that those making a 911 
call over TRS facilities understand the implications of placing such a 
call, particularly in the context of the Commission's encouragement to 
TRS users to access emergency services

[[Page 5228]]

directly. As discussed above, the Commission imposed obligations on 
interconnected VoIP service providers to advise customers of the 
limitations on E911 service, obtain customer's acknowledgements of such 
advice, and distribute warning labels to be placed on equipment used in 
conjunction with interconnected VoIP service. VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 10272-10273, paragraph 48. In light of these requirements, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so, how the Commission's 
current requirements for VRS and IP Relay service providers should be 
revised. Should the Commission, for example, require that VRS and IP 
Relay service providers specifically advise new and existing 
subscribers of the circumstances under which E911 service may not be 
available through VRS and IP Relay service or may be in some way 
limited by comparison to traditional E911 service? Should VRS and IP 
Relay service providers be required to obtain and keep a record of 
affirmative acknowledgement by every subscriber of having received and 
understood this advisory? Should the Commission require VRS and IP 
Relay service providers to provide appropriate warning labels for 
installation on CPE used in connection with VRS and IP Relay services? 
Should receipt of compensation from the interstate TRS Fund be 
conditioned on compliance with such requirements? What, if any, other 
requirements should be imposed on VRS and IP Relay service providers in 
this regard?
    In the VoIP E911 Order, the Commission made clear that 
interconnected VoIP providers must use the Wireline E911 Network in 
transmitting E911 calls to the appropriate PSAP, and may not use a 10-
digit number (so called ``administrative numbers''). The Commission 
seeks comment on whether the same rule should apply to VRS and IP Relay 
service providers handling emergency calls.
    Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether, VRS and IP Relay 
service calls could be routed in such a way that they necessarily 
include a VoIP call, therefore allowing registration for interconnected 
VoIP calls to satisfy the registration requirement for users of VRS and 
IP Relay service. Because outbound VRS, IP Relay service, and VoIP 
calls all use the Internet, the Commission seeks comment on whether, if 
VRS and IP Relay service users were also VoIP subscribers, their 
emergency VRS or IP Relay service calls could simultaneously be 
directed to both the VRS or IP Relay service provider and the emergency 
service tied to their Registered Location with the VoIP provider. The 
Commission also seeks comment on any other ways in which the 
requirements of the VoIP E911 Order may be applied to the use of VRS 
and IP Relay service to ensure access to emergency services.
    PSAP Database. The Commission requires TRS providers to use PSAP 
databases to determine the appropriate PSAP to call in relaying an 
emergency call, and in the 2004 TRS Report and Order, the Commission 
continued to require providers to maintain and update these databases. 
TRS Second Improved Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 12407-12408, 
paragraph 42; 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12559-12560, 
paragraph 217. The Commission declined, however, to mandate a single 
national PSAP database that would be available to all TRS providers, 
noting that no national database exists for routing 911 calls. 2004 TRS 
Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12560, paragraph 218. Are these 
existing requirements concerning the use of PSAP databases sufficient 
for VRS and IP Relay service providers handling emergency calls, or 
should they be modified? The Commission also seeks comment on whether a 
national database is feasible and appropriate for VRS and IP Relay 
service providers handling emergency calls. If so, how could such a 
database be implemented and maintained?
    Priority Access to Emergency Calls. During busy periods, the CA may 
not be immediately available to handle an incoming VRS or IP Relay 
service call and, as a result, the caller may be put in a queue to wait 
for the next available CA. Because the ``85/10'' speed of answer rule 
applies to IP Relay service, such delays are less of a concern for IP 
Relay service. See 47 CFR 64.604(b)(2); 2005 VRS Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 
10254-10258, paragraphs 19-24. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
and how VRS and IP Relay service providers may identify incoming calls 
as emergency calls so that such calls can promptly be directed to a CA 
without waiting in a queue. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether equipment can be modified to permit users to make an emergency 
call that will be promptly recognized as such by the providers, so that 
a VRS or IP Relay service user has the ability to make a call that is 
the equivalent of a 911 voice telephone call.
    Multiple Providers. Several VRS and IP Relay service providers 
currently offer service, giving customers a choice of providers. In 
contrast, traditional TRS consumers must make intrastate TRS calls 
through the provider(s) selected by the state as part of the certified 
state TRS program. The Commission seeks comment on whether VRS and IP 
Relay service users should be required to register with each provider 
that they use, or whether a shared database could be established that 
could be accessed by all providers. The Commission also seeks comment 
on the advantages or disadvantages of using such a shared database.
    Registration and Jurisdictional Separation of Costs. As a general 
matter, Section 225 of the Communications Act provides that states are 
responsible for compensating providers for the costs of intrastate TRS, 
and the Interstate TRS Fund is responsible for compensating providers 
for the costs of interstate TRS. See 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3)(B). For 
traditional TRS calls made via the PSTN, providers can automatically 
determine if a particular call is interstate or intrastate, and bill 
either the appropriate state or the Interstate TRS Fund accordingly. 
For VRS and IP Relay service calls, however, because one leg of the 
call is via the Internet, it is presently not possible for a provider 
to determine if a particular call is interstate or intrastate. As a 
result, presently all VRS and IP Relay service calls are compensated 
from the Interstate TRS Fund.
    In the FNPRM of the 2004 TRS Report and Order, the Commission 
sought comment on possible means for applying jurisdictional separation 
of costs to VRS and IP Relay service calls. See 2004 TRS Report and 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12561-12564, paragraphs 221-230 (IP Relay), 12567, 
paragraphs 241-242 (VRS). The Commission now seeks comment on whether a 
registration requirement for emergency call handling could also be used 
as a mechanism to allocate TRS costs between the interstate and 
intrastate jurisdictions. See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 
12567, paragraph 242. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, 
assuming all VRS and IP Relay service calls continue to be compensated 
from the Interstate TRS Fund, an exception should be made for emergency 
VRS and IP Relay service calls, so that they are paid for by the states 
or the Interstate TRS Fund, depending on the jurisdictional nature of 
the call. Further, the Commission seeks comment on any other 
alternatives for funding emergency VRS and IP Relay service calls.
    Timelines. The Commission seeks comment on how much time it may 
reasonably take for providers to implement the solutions proposed in 
this NPRM. The Commission also seeks

[[Page 5229]]

comment on whether there continues to be any reason to have separate 
deadlines for complying with waived mandatory minimum standards for 
emergency call handling for VRS and IP Relay services. Finally, the 
Commission asks parties to provide any further information that may 
illuminate the issues raised in this NPRM.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). See 5 U.S.C. 603. The 
RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law Number 
104-121, 110 Statute 857 (1996). Written public comments are requested 
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission 
will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 
603(a).

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    Under the Commission's regulations, providers of telecommunications 
relay services (TRS), mandated by Title IV of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990, see 47 U.S.C. 225, are required to handle 
emergency calls from service their customers. 47 CFR 64.604(a)(4). To 
do so, TRS providers must know the appropriate PSAP to call based on 
the location of the calling party. Because VRS and IP Relay service use 
the Internet rather than the PSTN for the leg of the call coming into 
the relay center, the relay center does not have a means of 
automatically detecting the location of the calling party. As a result, 
the emergency call handling requirement is presently waived for VRS and 
IP Relay service providers. Because of the importance of being able to 
call emergency services, the NPRM seeks comment on rules the Commission 
should adopt to ensure that VRS and IP Relay service providers can 
handle calls seeking access to emergency services and make an outbound 
call to an appropriate PSAP.
    More specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should adopt a registration process whereby VRS and IP Relay service 
providers would be required to establish, in advance, the primary 
location from which the VRS and IP Relay service users will be making 
calls, so the provider can identify the appropriate PSAP to contact. 
The NPRM addresses a number of issues concerning how a registration 
process for VRS and IP Relay service users might be implemented and 
whether imposing such a requirement would be consistent with Section 
225 of the Communications Act. In addition, the NPRM addresses several 
related issues, including: (1) Whether VRS and IP Relay service calls 
could be structured in such a way that they necessarily include a VoIP 
call, so that the registration that is required by the VoIP E911 Order 
for users of interconnected VoIP service would satisfy the registration 
requirement for users of VRS and IP Relay service; (2) whether the 
Commission should adopt new requirements for providers to warn their 
customers of the limitations of using VRS and IP Relay service to make 
emergency calls and/or provide warning labels to be placed on 
equipment; (3) whether the Commission should adopt requirements that 
establish a national PSAP database; (4) whether it is possible for VRS 
and IP Relay service providers to recognize incoming calls as emergency 
calls so that such calls do not have to wait in a queue to be handled; 
(5) whether customer registration could be accomplished through a 
shared database, rather than individually databases for each provider; 
(6) whether the registration requirement could be used to determine 
whether calls are intrastate or interstate for purposes of 
jurisdictional separation of costs; and (7) how long it might take for 
providers to implement a registration process.

Legal Basis

    The authority for the actions proposed in this NPRM may be found in 
Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 
and 225, and Sec. Sec.  64.601-64.608, 47 CFR 64.601-64.608 of the 
Commission's rules.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term 
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The statutory 
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after 
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes 
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the 
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 
Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one 
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.
    As noted above, the TRS rule requiring providers to handle 
emergency calls (i.e., to be able to make the outbound call to an 
appropriate PSAP) is presently waived for VRS and IP Relay service 
providers. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
adopt a registration process, or some other means, by which VRS and IP 
Relay service providers can ensure that can be routed to the 
appropriate PSAP. The Commission believes that the entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules are only those TRS providers that offer 
IP Relay service and VRS. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of ``small entity'' specifically directed toward 
TRS providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules 
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, for which the small business 
size standard is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 
121.201 of the Commission's rules, NAICS Code 517110. Currently, there 
are eight TRS providers that offer VRS and/or IP Relay service, which 
consist of interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, other 
common carriers, and non-profit organizations. Approximately five or 
fewer of these entities are small businesses under the SBA size 
standard. See National Association for State Relay Administration 
(NASRA) Statistics. These numbers are estimates because of recent and 
pending mergers and partnerships in the telecommunications industry.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The NPRM's proposed registration requirement, if adopted, would 
require VRS and IP Relay service providers to

[[Page 5230]]

obtain from each customer, prior to the initiation of service, the 
physical location at which the service will first be utilized (i.e., 
the ``Registered Location''), and to provide customers a way to update 
this information. The NPRM also asks whether VRS and IP Relay service 
calls could be routed in such a way that they necessarily include a 
VoIP call so that the registration that is required by the VoIP E911 
Order for users of interconnected VoIP service would satisfy the 
registration requirement for users of VRS and IP Relay service. Third, 
the NPRM asks whether the Commission should impose new or additional 
requirements on providers to warn their customers of the limitations of 
using VRS and IP Relay service to make emergency calls, and to provide 
warning labels to be placed on equipment. Fourth, the NPRM asks whether 
the Commission should adopt new or additions for PSAP databases and/or 
require a national PSAP database. Fifth, the NPRM asks whether customer 
registration can be accomplished through a shared database, rather than 
individual database for each provider. Finally, the NPRM asks whether 
registration requirement could be used to determine whether calls are 
intrastate or interstate for purposes of jurisdictional separation of 
costs.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.'' 5 
U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (4).
    This NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt a 
registration process, or some other means, by which VRS and IP Relay 
service providers can ensure that emergency calls can be routed to the 
appropriate PSAP to contact. The NPRM, however, contemplates 
alternative means by which the Commission might ensure that VRS and IP 
Relay service providers can handle emergency calls. As noted, the 
Commission seeks comment on what ways VRS and IP Relay service 
providers currently seek to provide emergency services to their 
customers. Thus, there may be alternatives to direct regulation to 
achieve the Commission's public policy goals of ensuring the 
availability of 911 and E911 capability for VRS and IP Relay service 
users. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on such alternatives.
    The NPRM asks whether VRS and IP Relay service calls could be 
routed in such a way that they necessarily include a VoIP call, so that 
the registration that is required by the VoIP E911 Order for 
interconnected VoIP users would satisfy the registration requirement 
for users of VRS and IP Relay service. Because outbound VRS, IP Relay 
service, and VoIP calls all use the Internet, if VRS and IP Relay 
service users that were also VoIP subscribers their emergency VRS or IP 
Relay service calls could simultaneously be directed to both the VRS or 
IP Relay service provider and the emergency service tied to their 
Registered Location with the VoIP provider. This alternative approach 
to ensuring access to emergency services could mitigate any burdens the 
proposed registration requirement might have on small businesses.
    Third, the NPRM asks whether the Commission should impose new or 
different requirements on providers to warn their customers of the 
limitations of using VRS and IP Relay service to make emergency calls 
and/or provide warning labels to be placed on equipment. As noted in 
the NPRM, TRS providers already are required to advise user to make a 
direct call to a PSAP in the event of an emergency, rather than use VRS 
or IP Relay service. Because VRS or IP Relay service may sometimes be 
the only way for a user to make emergency calls, VRS or IP Relay 
service providers must be prepare to handle such calls (unless the 
emergency call handling requirement is waived). There may be a number 
of alternative ways providers can ensure that VRS and IP Relay service 
users are informed about the limitations of using these services for 
emergency calls, and the NPRM broadly seeks comment about such 
alternatives.
    Fourth, the NPRM asks whether the Commission should require a 
national PSAP database. A single, national PSAP database might be 
preferable to multiple provider-maintained databases. One alternative 
under consideration is the creation of voluntary agreements among 
public safety trade associations, VRS and IP Relay service 
stakeholders, customers, and state and local E911 coordinators and 
administrators for VRS and IP Relay service to received enhanced 911 
functionality. Promulgation of best practices or technical guidelines 
ensure that providers could determine an appropriate PSAP for a 
particular VRS or IP Relay service emergency call. The Commission 
therefore requests comment on the viability of such alternatives, 
especially with regard to the impact of each alternative on small 
businesses.
    Fifth, the NPRM asks whether it is possible for providers to 
recognize incoming calls as emergency calls so that such calls do not 
have to wait in a queue. Providing such priority access to emergency 
calls would ensure that VRS and IP Relay service users would promptly 
reach a CA able to handle their emergency call. The Commission requests 
comment on alternative options for accomplishing this goal.
    Sixth, because VRS and IP Relay service customers can choose from 
among several VRS and IP Relay service providers, and often use more 
than one, the NPRM seeks comment on whether any customer registration 
could be accomplished through a shared database, rather than individual 
databases for each provider. A shared database would likely be less 
onerous for providers because every provider would not have to register 
every customer.
    Seventh, the NPRM asks whether registration could be used to 
determine whether calls are intrastate or interstate for purposes of 
jurisdictional separation of costs. If so, registration would solve the 
current compensation problem, the inability to determine if a VRS or IP 
Relay service call is intrastate or interstate, without putting 
additional burdens on the providers.
    Finally, the NPRM asks how long it might take for providers to 
implement registration and whether registration could or should be 
implemented at the same time for VRS and IP Relay service. This 
question is asked to ensure that providers are not unduly burdened by 
having to comply with new rules for both services at the same time.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 225, 255, 303(r), 403, 
624(g), and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 225, 255, 303(r), 403, 554(g), and 606,

[[Page 5231]]

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1368 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P